June 4, 2018--Barr & Bee

Of course Samantha Bee has the First Amendment right on her TV show to call Ivanka Trump a "feckless cunt."

And of course Rosanne Barr has the same constitutional right on Twitter to refer to African-American Valerie Jarrett as an "ape."

The First Amendment also protects their right to be stupid, and worse. They both for me are on the "worse" end of the scale.

But freedom of speech and other freedoms can have consequences.

For example, many on the left applauded the ABC network when it moved swiftly to cancel Barr's top-rated show. While many on the right are calling on Bee's network, TBS, to do the same thing. Not firing her they see to be evidence of liberal bias in the media. Minimally, evidence of a double standard.

Clearly what Barr and Bee did was not equivalent. 

Bee made her stupid comments as part of stand-up schtick. In other words what she spewed was an example of a joke gone wrong. Terribly wrong. 

But comedians are given dispensation to push the limits in their acts (think Lenny Bruce and Joan Rivers). In fact, they are encouraged to do so. They are often seen as speaking truth to power under the cover of comedy. Like Shakespeare's fools (think Lear's Fool or Puck in Midsummer Night's Dream).

Barr exposed her racism on Twitter, as a private citizen (who has the same First Amendment rights as Rosanne the actor), expressing her views, not in character, while off the air. Also, she claimed, as an alibi, that what she tweeted was a clumsy joke that misfired.

So an initial issue involves the fact that Barr was fired while Bee wasn't. At least not yet. The double-standards business claimed by Republicans. Though let's see what TBS does when more of her sponsors dump her, as some already have.

TBS may be able to allow Bee to remain on the air until that inevitably happens because her show is broadcast on cable where standards about what is acceptable are more permissive than what traditional networks allow, especially, as in ABC's case, if the network is owned by PG-rated Disney.

Now, let's deal with the politics beyond the hypocrisy on both the right and left.

The right at the moment has the political upper hand--Barr was fired while Bee wasn't. As good as progressives are at explaining things away, rationalizing them (as they have been struggling to do for days now on MSNBC) it is hard to make the case that it's OK, after an apology, to say about Ivanka what Bee said even though it was uttered under the sanction of comedy, where anything goes, and was directed at an employee of the White House (fair game) who also happens to be our reprehensible president's daughter. A president who has contributed immeasurably to the coarsening of discourse that has led to this. A president who has said much worse things than Samantha Bee or, for that matter, Rosanne Barr.

Again politically, progressives occupied the moral high ground while Barr's tweets were the sole subject of outrage. Then Bee stepped in it and changed the focus of the political struggle. Now everyone is talking and agitating about Samantha Bee. Rosanne Barr is relegated to a sidebar.

Here's my take--

I hate what both of them said. But both of them are or should be protected to say almost anything. (Not "Fire!" in a crowded theater.) That's the easy part. It's my view that they are pretty much equally culpable. Many on the left disagree. Fine.

I wouldn't fire either of them. We don't want to intimidate our comedians, our fools. During these times we need them more than ever. We need to hear their versions of the truth. We need them to be funny while subversive. How so many of us can't wait for the latest episode of Saturday Night Live. There is already so much fear that chilling difficult discourse more than it already is is dangerous to our survival as a democracy.

As a partisan, as someone who wants to see Trump weakend, humbled, and thereby rendered less effective, I want those on the left, who are essential to helping to bring this about, to be smarter than they currently are. We can't retreat from the fray and focus on our lifestyles (I have written about this ad nauseam) but must fight back even harder. Though smarter. 

Samantha Bee's rights are constitutionally protected (at least for now), but wasting them by wounding oneself while being stupid, and the rationalizations I am hearing from those I otherwise admire, is helping boost Trump's approval ratings and will interfere with progressives' prospects in November.

I am sorry if this pragmatic focus does not elevate our dialogue but until after the midterms my mantra is going to continue to be obsessively practical. 

I want us to be smart, less self-righteous, and above all win. Then we can go back to being nuanced and subtle. 

March 4, 2014-Oscars

I think I figured out why the Academy Awards are so boring.

It's not because neither Bob Hope nor Johnny Carson are available to serve as hosts. Though for me almost anyone other than Ellen DeGeneres would be an improvement.

It's not because the actresses are so afraid of what Joan Rivers will say the next day about their gowns on Fashion Police that they tend to pick and wear ones that are so safe and predictably "glamorous."

The show is not awful because there are so many technical awards--after all films are a technical medium and camera work, sound, editing, and special effects are much about what makes movies special. Besides, without all these awards the show would be over in an hour and a half and we would miss all the commercials.

And, though the winning songs tend to be the worst of the ones nominate (this year's for Frozen a case in point), this too is not why the Oscar's show is so forgettable.

It's because the winners are so interminably borrrrring.

If I had thought to do so, in the tradition that it's all right, even expected, to be bitchy about the Oscars' show, I would have used a stop watch to calculate how much time was spent by the winners thanking people. They get a couple of minutes to make their acceptance speeches before music is played to get them off stage and for the most part, with the exception of Jared Leto, who won for best supporting actor, and Steve McQueen, director of 12 Years a Slave, every winner spent virtually all their allotted time thanking everyone from their parents (inevitable) to their hair person.

This left no time for anyone to say something funny or pithy. Forget memorable.

I was left to thinking that Jared Leto saying a few words about AIDS and Ukraine was courageous and wondering if Cate Blanchett would have the "courage" to thank her director, Woody Allen. He's in trouble once more because one of Mia Farrow's 100 children two weeks ago again accused him of molesting her when Woody was living with Mia, which must have been a nightmare. I mean, living with Mia Farrow.

Cate did manage to muster enough courage to mutter something about how Woody was good enough to cast her for the film. Cast, take note, not direct. I guess that made what she felt compelled to say seem more benign.

So here's my suggestion--as an experiment, next year, tell all nominees that if they win they are allowed to thank only their families and God. (Thank God this year only Matthew McConaughey pointed to the heaven and gave thanks before lapsing into incoherence.)

This way, they could get someone to write something funny for them or, who knows, maybe even something clever, witty, or meaningfully political. Or they could just wing it and look ridiculous. That would give people like me more ammunition to make fun of the whole thing.

By the way, the best performance by an actor was Bruce Dern's in the best film, Nebraska.

May 3, 2013--Hollywood On the Potomac

When Roone Arledge, the programming genius behind the ascent and profitability of ABC Sports (remember "Wide World of Sports" and the original "Monday Night Football"?), was asked to also take responsibility for the failing ABC News division, I knew it was all over.

By "all over" I mean the end of keeping journalism and entertainment separate. From then on, especially on television, the dominant medium of the time, profit would rule; and in order to have TV news make money, it would be necessary to make reporting and news itself entertaining.

Cut to last weekend's White House correspondents dinner.

Seated at the same table, laughing at president Obama's jibes and jokes, were Bill O'Reilly (of FOX so-called News) and Anton Scalia (of the Supreme Court). Just across from them were Wolf Blitzer (of CNN) and Sharon Stone (of Basic Instinct) and nearby were Chris Matthews (of MSNBC) and Scarlett Johansson (of Lost in Translation).

Even Joan Rivers was on hand, keeping an eye on the red carpet (yes, this year, they actually instituted one) to offer up her snarky comments about Barbra Streisand's and Sofia Vergara's gowns and dos.

Most striking and revealing was the number of actors and producers present who either currently or in the recent past have been involved in film and TV projects set in Washington, more specifically in the White House.

Presidential intimate Valery Jarrett and UN ambassador Susan Rice were seen competing for air time with the cast of HBO's Veep, ABC's Scandal, and Netflix's House of Cards.

Also front and center were Michael Douglas who played the president in The American President and Claire Danes, the star of Showtime's thriller, Homeland. Even the terrorist heavy from Homeland, Navid Negahhan, who played Abu Nazir was in the house. As reported by the New York Times, Amy Poehler said, "I thought we killed Osama bin Laden."

I suppose it's good to see some bin Laden jokes and to know that, even though the White House and the Congress can't get anything done, at least they can entertain us.